Hoke has brought back two suspended players, Frank Clark and Fitz Toussaint and has cleared them to practice with the team. He says that he is not certain if they will play in the opener against Alabama.
I'm posting this, not so much to bash Hoke for clearingToussaint and Clark to rejoin the team, but so you all can read the comments made on this story from UM fans (and others) regarding this news.
It's kinda fun to see 'Bama fans trolling the Michigan site...
"Paralyze resistance with persistence." -Woody Hayes
Clearly if they had traded their Sugar Bowl rings for tattoos, the punishment would be more severe. This is why I thought the NCAA action in the Penn State case was so important. It showed that they aren't solely concerned to hammering student-athletes for rules violations. At some point, the schools and the NCAA as an organization has be take a stance against criminal activity. Schools can't be trusted to handle it on their own.
Something is seriously wrong when a mistake in judgment (though not immoral) is punished more harshly that criminal behavior. Seriously wrong.
It's not uncommon for "suspended" players to continue to practice... so I'm not sure this is all that newsworthy. If they get reinstated for the Alabama game... now that will be newsworthy.
I agree. I don't really care that they have been cleared to practice. I mainly posted this so you could read what UM fans (and others) have commented on the story at AnnArbor.com. I found the comments to be interesting, as many were bashing Hoke for this decision.
Hoke had been consistently "no comment" about whether or not either of them will play... it is interesting, and I know a lot of Michigan fans that will be really disapointed with him if he lets either of them play (unless they happened to be cleared of charges prior to the game which seems unlikely).
This is definitely a down-side to scheduling a big game as your opener... you have the entire off-season worth of disciplinary actions that could lead to players not playing that first game.
He's also been lenient which will come back to bite him in the ass. Can't wait to see all the defensive comments from the 4 to 5 tTUN fans that come here...because you know they will... No defense for him...he's been way more fiorgiving than Meyer's been at OSU. Enough said...
"There's nothing that cleanses your soul like getting the hell kicked out of you."
"I love football. I think it is most wonderful game in world and I despise to lose."
Woody Hayes 1913 - 1987
He definitely should be suspended for 1 game minimum, probably 2. We'll see what Hoke does.
BHOP - He only reinstated them...thats it. There has been no mention of what the punishment will be at this point. If the season starts and no punishment was handed down then your statement will hold true, but until that point we really cant make any comparisons between the two. I will agree that it will be tough for him to come down on player transgressions the way that Meyer has. I must admit, I have been pleasantly surprised at how he has handled discipline to this point.
For a DUI, Domestic Violence, or any felony, a player should be suspended for at least as many games as one would be suspended for taking $1000 in improper benefits. It's disproportionate to treat them otherwise considering the seriousness of those types of charges.
Should be 4 games, minimum. Anything less is a relative slap on the wrist.
As far as Touissant, I think this is a non-factor. I honestly don't see him doing much against Bama's D anyway. I know he's a decent back....but Bama's D didn't even let LSU across the 50 until the 3rd quarter in the NC game!! I know they lost some starters, but cmon. UM's offense is in for a frustrating night, IMHO.
I've heard that Rawls is been a beast through the summer, Won't be shocked to see him as the starter against Alabama. Vincent Smith has Maurice Wells syndrome, so Rawls will carry the load.
Dustin Fox was our leading tackler as a corner.... because his guy always caught the ball.
Yes, Rawls will be the guy vs Bama and probably Air Force. Touissant will be suspended for 1-2 games. DUI is a very stupid thing to do, but it's not on par with the improper benefits charges/penalties in the college football world, 2002Grad. Of course, we still don't know what Fitz blew that night and if the charges will stand...it was his mom's beer they found in his bloodstream /S/
Clark should be dismissed if found guilty of felony home invasion, theft charges. If those charges are reduced, he should be looking at a 2-4 game suspension. These guys are not off the hook, by any stretch, but until this all runs its course, they shouldn't be punished.
Those who stay will be CHAMPIONS!
~Bo Schembechler
It's hard to kill someone taking a couple dollars from a booster. Not so much as a drunk driver. The latter penalty should be much more severe when factoring the consequences.
@ Lou
No question about it. Driving drunk can result in killing innocent people. It should be dealt with very heavy handedly IMO.
Your issue is with the legal system, Lou. Bernie Madoff didn't risk any lives. Stealing a laptop doesn't put anyone's life in jeopardy. Yet both of those crimes are more heavily penalized than DUI. A DUI can be the result of one poor, impaired decision. While I don't condone it, I undestand how it can happen. He should be punished, but it is not on par with some of the other actions listed above.
Those who stay will be CHAMPIONS!
~Bo Schembechler
Lou, I agree with you, a DUI is a worse offense than improper benefits. I think that is why Hail added the clarifying statement "not on par in the college football world". The fact that other schools have played players without making them miss game time speaks to this (I'm looking directly at you Notre Dame). Is this right? No, but it is how it is. (Edit: Hail beat me to the punch.)
With the above being said, I would be surprised if either Fitz or Clark plays in the game against Alabama. The reinstatement to practice makes sense at this point to help their conditioning for when they do make it back on the field. It is also a bit of gamesmanship on Hoke's part right now to not publicly declare them suspended for the game. I'm sure Hoke want's to make Alabama have to prepare for the possibility that Fitz is playing. That is additional game film they will have to disect and watch and instruction time for their young defense that will have to be used in the limited timelines of the NCAA. This is the same reason why some teams try to conceal player injury information if they can. I will be disappointed if either plays in the Bama game though and would be highly surprised if they are played, that it would be more than the second half. Hopefuly that doesn't even happen.
I think the penalties should be changed across the board for DUIs in any way, shape, or form. The end results have been tragically repeated. What more needs to happen for all to realize driving a 2 ton plus vehicle while intoxicated is a disaster waiting to happen. OSU players included. The rules of discipline need changed to reflect the severity of this action. It should also be handled as severely by teams when players get hit with drunken driving, again no matter what player or team that may be.
Agree. There should also be a greater stance taken toward other distracting actions while driving (i.e. eating/drinking, talking on a cell phone--hands free or not, holding any object other than those required to drive, etc.)
Fitz's BAC was .12
He drank enough to know better, IMO
Those who stay will be CHAMPIONS!
~Bo Schembechler
Hoke is a softy, in both this heart and his midsection. He wont discipline them.
"if irony were made of strawberries, we' d all be drinking a lot of smoothies right now."
I seem to recall a couple of our players missing zero game time after DUI arrests under Tressel... Boone and Worthington. Just sayin...
as a recovering drunk, an alcoholic, driving while intoxicated is very bad. i say a one year suspension would be proper. is that too severe? probably, but so is driving drunk and risking killing one or more people. send a loud message i say.
You're right BuckeyeStu, nothing will change until heavy handed punishment is administered. At the very least a 4 game suspension.
well , okay, i could go along with a 4 game suspension, thats getting off light, but yeah okay 4 games minimum, and maybe an extra game or two, if the offender is underage.
When this first came out, I was listening to the Big Show, and they were saying "as a college football fan, I want to see Touissant play against Alabama." I can understand that in the sense that you'd love to see both teams at full strength, and if he doesn't play, and Mich loses, then some Mich fans will use that as an excuse for why they lost. That would depend on how bad they would lose. 35-3 to USC in '08 without Beanie was bad enough that the excuse wouldn't hold much water, as Beanie playing wouldn't have changed the outcome.
At the same time, though, you want to see the right thing done. Fitz should get one game, maybe two. This is a test for Hoke and where his priorities lie. It would be easy to suspend your starting RB for a typical cupcake season opener against a school that you'll still beat by 4 TDs. But this isn't some cupcake. What you gonna do, Hoke?
I think he'll suspend Fitz. And it won't make much of a difference, as I don't think Mich beats Alabama if Fitz does play. As far as Frank Clark goes, when I tell my Mich fan friend about his charges, and he says "Who?", that tells a lot about how consequential losing him would be. If he really did what he's charged with, he should be gone.
Class of 2010.
As tough as Urban has been on those in trouble at OSU in his short time here, it may be argued that he was just as lenient at Florida. Think that has something to do with the gigantic magnifying glance the program is under after the previous administration's handling of infractions?
The issue I have is why does he wait to punish them? It only leads to a logical conclusion that he is waiting to see if he can get away with playing them...
The touissant issue is the biggest, because it seems to be a bit more clear as to the violation. Clark's can get pleaded down easier, IMO. Plus, they need touie more.
Also, if they aren't going to play him, he's not getting the right RB the reps he needs before the game. It's rather confusing from my standpoint, unless he is just trying to arrange an excuse for the loss...
Either way, they have had far too many arrests to be pointing their righteous fingers.
Robert Smith says that he is certain that Fitz will play vs Alabama and guarantees it, based on Hoke's comments that Fitz is preparing in practice as if he'll play.
Joe Schad also thinks he'll play "some" in the Alabama game
I still don't see it happening, but we'll see.
Those who stay will be CHAMPIONS!
~Bo Schembechler
It doesn't send a good message if Clark is suspended and Fitz is not. Both are crimes, but IMO a DUI is far more serious as it puts lives in danger. Fitz should get 2 games
Sorry Urban, Woody is still my favorite
If Fitz plays that's a black eye for Hoke & Michigan. Wonder if he'd be playing if Toussaint had killed one of Hoke's kids while driving drunk. Hmm....
Shameful.
I can't believe how easy this kid is getting it! To all who think he shouldn't get in troulde need to repeat after me, say it with me "DUI"! Hell if he had a gun in a movie theater he could at least say he was worried for his saftey, but what's his excuse did he run out of beer!
Wherever you are, there you be!
It will say all that is needed about their coach. The fan base has made him out to be this unworldly coach that is the model for all other coaches. How that can be made from his career or one season there is beyond me. This will show he is nothing more than another win at all cost guy. Wonder how Joke will explain it, better yet how will their fans spin that one?
Hoke hasn't made the decision one way or the other. Those were just the opinions of the ESPN guys. Clark is also suspended indefinitely, but allowed to practice. Neither have gotten off with nothing, to this point.
Edit: The real fans will spin it like I do...if Hoke let's Fitz play vs 'Bama, it is a terrible decision and is the wrong one. No one player is above the program or school. Michigan preaches integrity, and if Hoke wants to keep any, he'll sit Fitz (which I still think he will after he appears in court).
Those who stay will be CHAMPIONS!
~Bo Schembechler
^^^^^ I agree with Hail. I don't think Fitz or Clark will play versus Bama. I think what is really going on is gamesmanship. Hoke wants 'Bama to have to prepare as if Fitz is playing. The more they have to respect that option, the less time they have to prepare for Denard or anything else the Michigan offense may do with Fitz out. This is much like what coaches like to do with injuries, listing a kid as probable when really he should be listed as out on the injury report.
Something doesn't make sense. Why have fitz run with the 1's in practice if he is not playing? you are only hurting your offense here...
Secondly, Alabama is preparing for denard, not fitz. He's not THAT good...
Hail - If Hoke plays Fitz or not, either way, he is setting a precedent for the future.
Do you expect Roundtree back for the Alabama game?
Yes, I'd be shocked if RR was not back for the bama game. Coaches are giving coachspeak, but in some of the discussions I read, I've heard that he'll probably be back to normal in a week, and the second week is just to make sure he's good to go. Of course everyone heals differently.
Agree, this decision is going to dictate how things happen in the future. Like some of said, if we were opening vs Umass and Air Force, this would be a non-issue.
Those who stay will be CHAMPIONS!
~Bo Schembechler
@gobucks96 Fitz may be running with the 1's, but how much? Is it 50/50 with Rawls, or maybe 25/75? The media isn't allowed to watch practice and all the information comes from the coaches or the players that have been hand selected to speak to the media.
Fitz doesn't have to be a great back, he just needs to be good enough to keep defenses honest. He also does have enough breakaway speed to be a homerun threat.
The key here is to make 'Bama have to prepare for the whole offensive package. You need to make them prepare honest and not feel like they can cheat on any one option. Will all eyes be on Denard? Of course, you need to know how to play disciplined football to contain him. But if you also have to prepare for a somewhat good running back, some of your keys or assignments might play out different. This is the plan. If this type of stuff works, I don't know, but coaches seem to stick to it.
It would be a shameful indictment of the priorities of Michigan, and the NCAA in general, if Toussaint plays in the Alabama game.
Well, I don't recall many complaints when Boone started against N. Illinois after a spring DUI, and he was caught completely blacked out. I'd say, conservatively, 50% of the "high-horsed" commentators here have been questionable behind the wheel at least once, realistically, 70-80%. Let's not kid ourselves. I would be willing to bet he doesn't even play (Fitz) against Bama anyway.
Bucktooooooth, heeyaw.
...or when Worthington played against Youngstown St. in 2008 after his DUI arrest. So I guess what we're saying is that if Toussaint plays against Alabama, then Michigan and Hoke are just as bad as OSU and Tressel.
No, I'm saying people make bad choices, and we don't know what sort of punishment is going on behind the scenes at scUM, just like we weren't privy to how Boone or Worthington may have been punished. As the alchoholic several posts up pointed out, "driving while intoxicated is very bad." But a 1 year suspention? I'm sure this upstanding person didn't have a one year suspention on anything important except his license, and he probably still had work privileges, and he's an alchoholic. I'm saying some of you need to step off the high horses, especially since this guy hasn't seen the field yet.
Bucktoooooooth, heeyaw.
But if the tables were turned and it was Ohio State....all the michigan fans would be screaming foul play.